Now that the topic is done and over with and I have no problem sharing my cases/evidence with the public, is anyone interested in doing an official debate on this? I am willing to take either side for the Resolved: In the United States Criminal Justice System, jury nullification ought to be used in the face of perceived injustice

At 12/29/2015 2:18:16 AM, Death23 wrote:You should specify a threshold magnitude of the perceived injustice in the resolution.

What do you mean? There would be no threshold magnitude that would be up to each individual juror to determine.

The resolution is ambiguous as to the threshold.

"Jury nullification ought to be used in the face of perceived injustice"

Does that mean this:

"Jury nullification ought to be used in the face of any perceived injustice, however slight"

or this:

"Jury nullification ought to be used in the face of perceived injustice in some cases"

The latter is a lot easier to argue for. The former is very difficult to argue for. The debate could just boil down to the ambiguity of the whole thing, and that would probably be missing the point.

There would be no point in saying how much injustice is necessary for JN to be used since either way due to the nature of perception the juror will have the final say in what is unjust.

Well the resolution does say "ought to be used" ... "in the face of perceived injustice". Textually, I interpret it to mean something like "When a jury perceives an injustice, nullification ought to be used." The only required element appearing to be a "perceived injustice"; From the wording of the resolution it doesn't appear to matter what the magnitude of the justice is or if it's an actual injustice; The only trigger appears to be that an injustice was perceived. The resolution doesn't say how much injustice is necessary, but it implies that the threshold is infinitely close to zero, if it were quantifiable.

At 12/29/2015 2:18:16 AM, Death23 wrote:You should specify a threshold magnitude of the perceived injustice in the resolution.

What do you mean? There would be no threshold magnitude that would be up to each individual juror to determine.

The resolution is ambiguous as to the threshold.

"Jury nullification ought to be used in the face of perceived injustice"

Does that mean this:

"Jury nullification ought to be used in the face of any perceived injustice, however slight"

or this:

"Jury nullification ought to be used in the face of perceived injustice in some cases"

The latter is a lot easier to argue for. The former is very difficult to argue for. The debate could just boil down to the ambiguity of the whole thing, and that would probably be missing the point.

There would be no point in saying how much injustice is necessary for JN to be used since either way due to the nature of perception the juror will have the final say in what is unjust.

Well the resolution does say "ought to be used" ... "in the face of perceived injustice". Textually, I interpret it to mean something like "When a jury perceives an injustice, nullification ought to be used." The only required element appearing to be a "perceived injustice"; From the wording of the resolution it doesn't appear to matter what the magnitude of the justice is or if it's an actual injustice; The only trigger appears to be that an injustice was perceived. The resolution doesn't say how much injustice is necessary, but it implies that the threshold is infinitely close to zero, if it were quantifiable.

Once again, I'd be glad to Affirm if you want to debate this. This resolution wasn't created by me btw, it was the NSDA/National Forensic League's Lincoln Douglas November-December resolution. Although to me injustice doesn't come in degrees, something is either just or unjust, furthermore the nature of perception puts whether something is unjust or not in the hands of the jury so I am not disputing that.

At 12/29/2015 2:18:16 AM, Death23 wrote:You should specify a threshold magnitude of the perceived injustice in the resolution.

What do you mean? There would be no threshold magnitude that would be up to each individual juror to determine.

The resolution is ambiguous as to the threshold.

"Jury nullification ought to be used in the face of perceived injustice"

Does that mean this:

"Jury nullification ought to be used in the face of any perceived injustice, however slight"

or this:

"Jury nullification ought to be used in the face of perceived injustice in some cases"

The latter is a lot easier to argue for. The former is very difficult to argue for. The debate could just boil down to the ambiguity of the whole thing, and that would probably be missing the point.

There would be no point in saying how much injustice is necessary for JN to be used since either way due to the nature of perception the juror will have the final say in what is unjust.

Well the resolution does say "ought to be used" ... "in the face of perceived injustice". Textually, I interpret it to mean something like "When a jury perceives an injustice, nullification ought to be used." The only required element appearing to be a "perceived injustice"; From the wording of the resolution it doesn't appear to matter what the magnitude of the justice is or if it's an actual injustice; The only trigger appears to be that an injustice was perceived. The resolution doesn't say how much injustice is necessary, but it implies that the threshold is infinitely close to zero, if it were quantifiable.

Once again, I'd be glad to Affirm if you want to debate this. This resolution wasn't created by me btw, it was the NSDA/National Forensic League's Lincoln Douglas November-December resolution. Although to me injustice doesn't come in degrees, something is either just or unjust, furthermore the nature of perception puts whether something is unjust or not in the hands of the jury so I am not disputing that.

Meh. I don't like ambiguous resolutions. They result in boring semantic arguments, and those don't blow over well with voters even if they're technically correct. I'd much rather debate something unambiguous and avoid semantic arguments altogether.

I will be out of town tomorrow and part of Wednesday, but I will set it up and send you the challenge Wednesday afternoon if that works for you. 72 hour intervals for the other side to argue, 10,000 characters, 10 day voting period, open voting?

I will be out of town tomorrow and part of Wednesday, but I will set it up and send you the challenge Wednesday afternoon if that works for you. 72 hour intervals for the other side to argue, 10,000 characters, 10 day voting period, open voting?

You don't want to do it live? LD debate is not well-suited to being typed out, because you cannot reflect the times skews.

I will be out of town tomorrow and part of Wednesday, but I will set it up and send you the challenge Wednesday afternoon if that works for you. 72 hour intervals for the other side to argue, 10,000 characters, 10 day voting period, open voting?

You don't want to do it live? LD debate is not well-suited to being typed out, because you cannot reflect the times skews.

Oh live is fine too! Are you sure you are okay with live? I did have 2 months to research this topic and have prepared cases and evidence, so I feel like that is an unfair advantage but if you are okay with it that is fine. What outlet do you want to use? Skype? G+?

I will be out of town tomorrow and part of Wednesday, but I will set it up and send you the challenge Wednesday afternoon if that works for you. 72 hour intervals for the other side to argue, 10,000 characters, 10 day voting period, open voting?

You don't want to do it live? LD debate is not well-suited to being typed out, because you cannot reflect the times skews.

Also do you want it to be open to the public or just a private debate? I am fine with either.

I will be out of town tomorrow and part of Wednesday, but I will set it up and send you the challenge Wednesday afternoon if that works for you. 72 hour intervals for the other side to argue, 10,000 characters, 10 day voting period, open voting?

You don't want to do it live? LD debate is not well-suited to being typed out, because you cannot reflect the times skews.

Oh live is fine too! Are you sure you are okay with live? I did have 2 months to research this topic and have prepared cases and evidence, so I feel like that is an unfair advantage but if you are okay with it that is fine. What outlet do you want to use? Skype? G+?

Live is fine. Google plus. You can pick the date, so long as it's late at night...preferably after 11.

I will be out of town tomorrow and part of Wednesday, but I will set it up and send you the challenge Wednesday afternoon if that works for you. 72 hour intervals for the other side to argue, 10,000 characters, 10 day voting period, open voting?

You don't want to do it live? LD debate is not well-suited to being typed out, because you cannot reflect the times skews.

Also do you want it to be open to the public or just a private debate? I am fine with either.

I will be out of town tomorrow and part of Wednesday, but I will set it up and send you the challenge Wednesday afternoon if that works for you. 72 hour intervals for the other side to argue, 10,000 characters, 10 day voting period, open voting?

You don't want to do it live? LD debate is not well-suited to being typed out, because you cannot reflect the times skews.

Also do you want it to be open to the public or just a private debate? I am fine with either.

Open.

To play it on the safe side I'll pick Thursday, 11 PM EST? No counter plans (would primarily apply to me). Are we going to delegate anyone in specific to judge or just let the viewers decide?

I will be out of town tomorrow and part of Wednesday, but I will set it up and send you the challenge Wednesday afternoon if that works for you. 72 hour intervals for the other side to argue, 10,000 characters, 10 day voting period, open voting?

You don't want to do it live? LD debate is not well-suited to being typed out, because you cannot reflect the times skews.

Also do you want it to be open to the public or just a private debate? I am fine with either.

Open.

To play it on the safe side I'll pick Thursday, 11 PM EST? No counter plans (would primarily apply to me). Are we going to delegate anyone in specific to judge or just let the viewers decide?

I think that should work, but if it can't, I'll let you know ASAP. I guess anyone can judge.

I will be out of town tomorrow and part of Wednesday, but I will set it up and send you the challenge Wednesday afternoon if that works for you. 72 hour intervals for the other side to argue, 10,000 characters, 10 day voting period, open voting?

You don't want to do it live? LD debate is not well-suited to being typed out, because you cannot reflect the times skews.

Also do you want it to be open to the public or just a private debate? I am fine with either.

Open.

To play it on the safe side I'll pick Thursday, 11 PM EST? No counter plans (would primarily apply to me). Are we going to delegate anyone in specific to judge or just let the viewers decide?

I think that should work, but if it can't, I'll let you know ASAP. I guess anyone can judge.